neil: cutting to the chase, no cuts. no cuts at all. 80 democratic congressmen say it, that's it, no budging on entitlements, you need proof, congressional democrats won't give an inch, and a texas congresswoman who offers as much as a single cut.

everything you said was taxes, taxes -- >> you have not heard anything i said because you never stopped talking to listen. you haven't heard anything i said. neil: tell me what you got. >> i just finished telling you there's a number of things of which we can look at. neil: you told me things to raise taxes. that's what you told me. you got to tell me one thing, i beg you, congressman, one thing you say i'm going to cut this. what would it be? >> you -- neil: you don't know, do you? >> well, yes, i know, but i have to have time to explain it. i can't tell you i'm going to walk in and cut this and cut that. neil: we got a lot of e-mail on that one. some said i was rude and the that the congresswoman or clueless, but we didn't make progress, did we? as the week ends, where do i start? a congressman who can't budge or went act, won't move, the republicans offering tax hikes with nothing in return, just

walk away from the table. that could be a very real possibility, and hear former office ceo of home depot say a welcomed one. a bad deal is worse than no deal. also with us, town hall's elizabeth and roll call. let's get a sense where you think this is going, steve. you don't like where it's going? >> no. you know, look, we need a deal. we're sitting on a price missing here with the whole world watching, the markets are expecting a deal, the credit rating agencies expecting a deal, and if we don't have a balanced deal including spending cuts and a revenue race, even if it's a small deal with a process for the future, you're going to see markets react, not only in this country, but around the world, and you're going to see the credit rating agencies act, and if that happens, our interest rates are going to go up. the cost of our debt's going to go up, and it's going to exas effort --

exacerbate the problem spinning out of control. it's in a point in time, and we're playing politics, when, in fact, the entire world, the business community, everybody around washington is saying, look, guys, make some progress here. neil: what worries me now is when the next shoe drops. democrats, largely 80 congressman did today, following the congressional black caucus and others like schumer said there's no reason to go after entitlements right now. what's to stop republicans from saying, we're outs of here, we're done. >> there is not a lot to stop republicans from saying, nope, then this is not going to work. we are not going to be able to come to a consensus before christmas or before we go off the cliff. a big he want of that was john boehner. he is headed home to ohio for the weekend. obviously, the lines of communication remain open with the white house, but that, to me, is very much a move, a political move, saying, hey, you need to come to the table a little bit more, white house and democrats, if we have any chance of making progress and getting a

deal. neil: elizabeth? >> well, i think anyone in the situation would agree you can't make the perfect the enemy of the good, but agree that no deal at this point is better than a bad deal just because bad deals create more problems than they solve. we saw that with obamacare, and, secondly, if you take the pressure off of congress doing a short term deal, you're never getting them to come back to the table to address reforms that need to happen. if there's one thing you learned, they do not work well under pressure. neil: not at all, period. what worries me about the developments as of late is that a good example is dick durbin of illinois says we can't do things in a rush, can't make decisions in a matter of days, and building upon republicans for essentially creating this predictment. well, it was a constanttpushing forward, the deadline that created this so-called rush. if not now, when? i wonner if not this opportunity

is it really done next year or the debt going to overwhelm us? >> well, you know, there's a lot of people pushing to say let's go off the cliff. neil: right. >> the problem is that if we do that, and the reason is because we'll get all of the tax hikes which, you know, one group wants, and we'll get certain spenting cuts which the other group wants civilling everything k don't t? it doesn't. it's the worst of both cases. i think all the rational people, the business community, the global markets are looking at this saying, look, a bad deal is bad. let's not do a bad deal, but let's do some deal. let's do some progress that's balanced, and then as part of that, lay out a process to do bigger tax reform and entitlement reform, which, clearly, is necessary. we can't keep going. neil: i love you, steve, but that's like a diet solution. hope springs eternal, but i look, and it's eternally gotten bigger. >> it's got to happen.

neil: i agree. here's the next thing, who blames who when it blows up? if you want to play that game, wouldn't republicans be wise to say we went so far as even to offer not just a tax hike, but actually to go back to the clinton rates. we didn't like the idea, but we did it, offered it, and they put the ball in the president's court. what's crazy about that? >> well, polling showed that voters and citizens are split. if we go off the fiscal cliff, the blame will be divided between the white house, but does lean a little bit more towards congress and particularly congressional republicans -- neil: wouldn't it be less, though, if boehner and colleagues come back and say, look, we agree to hiking taxes. we were on board. let it be known we agree. >> yeah, if boehner and the house republican caw cause caved, yeah, i mean, they can say they did everything they could, on the other hand, you have to remember that the dynamics of the republican

party; right? a lot of republicans -- and not just boehner's caucus, but also in the senate, and particularly, in the senate. a lot of the guys are worried about primary challenges from their right. neil: sure. >> look at the senate math in 2014, a lot of republicans up for re-election, a lot of the big states that tend to the right anyway, and they are worried about re-election here already, even though we just had one -- neil: oh, no, no, you're right. >> it's a key opponent. they have to cater by holding the line as long as they can. neil: to that point, there's a number of republicans telling me, usually off the record when they say this, that they think democrats overplayed their hand, the president overplayed him, won the election, not a landslide, and may have won higher taxes for the wealthy, but didn't win a pass on avoiding entitlement cuts, and it's hell to pay for him. what do you think? >> yeah, neil, you know, that may be true in fact, but,

unfortunately, for the g.o.p., until they learn how to win a messaging war, they could win all the policy battles they want, but will not win politically until they communicate this in the right way to the american people. neil: all right, so here we be; right, folks? without a deal, further from a deal unless it's happening behind the scenes we're missing, but if i'm missing something, it's potentially an awful deal that's disproportioned to your fear at the outset, steve, with tax hikes, more than -- more than dominating the scenes and very few cuts, then what? >> yeah, yeah, and, well, you know, that would be terrible because that wouldn't be the balance that the markets are looking for and so forth. look, all of the concentration has been on the political side. who wins, loses, and, you know, it's the people in washington we're talking about. they are forgetting who they are serving and why they are there. you know, businesses, main street, the markets are all

says, look, guys, you dug a $16 trillion hole. the math doesn't work. you cannot tax your way to prosperity, and you can't tax your way out of it. the money is not there. you'd run the government for a matter of weeks if you seized all of the wealth of the wealthy so it doesn't work. you've got to have a balanced approach to this thing, and you got to have spending cuts, and in order to do that, you got to have entitlement reform, and you'd rather have some sort of balanced approach which then describes a longer term approach now in order to -- forget about politics in order to settle the markets. neil: i'm beginning to wonldzer, i don't think the markets like it either way, but what's your prediction? how do you see it sorting out? >> i predict there might be a deal if there is a deal. i think it's under 50% of any deal, but this deal, if it happens, i think will be a small deal. see some frame work, you know, raise tax rates a little bit, and then they'll basically say,

okay, we promise to deal with the tax code and entitlement reform and form another supercommittee until march 1st or a deadline to get this done. what that would do is say democrats could go back to the race and say, okay, we claim victory, raise taxes on the highest income earners in america, and republicans all right, we have a promise and a process for entitlement reform in the coming year. the reality is that that's actually not a very good thing because congress can't do anything, and these committees have not been fruitful in the past. it's how we got ourselves in the spot in the first place through the supercommittee who couldn't avoid sequestering. neil: elizabeth? >> i agree much it's chris brown and rihanna going back to the same sisks, and it doesn't work out. bottom line, i don't know there's a deal, but if it is, the pattern is kicking the can down the road. i agree with that completely. you won't see change because that's not helped the economy at this point, and it probably will not help it in the future. neil: incredible, absolutely

incredible. thank you very much. in the meantime, sandy money to fix the smithsonian's roof. this has you hitting the roof. speaking of hitting, remember the union guys and the fists? get lawyers. [bleep]

neil: don't say i didn't warn you with washington set to give $60 billion to sandy battered states. how is the smithsonian getting $2 million of that to fix a roof on one of its buildings. it was not damaged because of sandy. it was damaged before sandy. no wonder americans for tax reform is so upset. i guess this shouldn't surprise us, but more to come, i suspect? >> right, neil, this is why as we talk about the fiscal cliff

and debating what can be done, anyone who's not telling you spending needs to be on the table and need to cut spending as part of the deal and solution is not serious. as you've seen, as soon as there's money, even the whiff of money on the tail, every agency on the board bellying up to the federal trough saying they need money, the smithsonian, the fbi, everyone all the sudden has a sandy-storm related cost they need paid for by the federal government. neil: you know what's weird? i was trying to think through the smithsonian, everyone is going to try to justify for why they need the money. they can have app exhibit later on to talk about deadliest storms to hit america, and we need the roof fixed, but it gets to stretch the imagination, and just credibility of the washington and how it gets money out, but big sums, $60 billionful, i imagine that's going to get common. >> more of a stretch is the sum in and of itself with the president saying we need $60

billion for storm recovery effort. what we doesn't tell you is 64% of the $60 billion is getting spent seven years from now, things that are going to be going out the door from 2015-2022. now, how is this an emergency relief effort if we look ten years down the road to have funds going out the door? you look at the package, it's a huge amount of money, but no effort to offset spending. if it's necessary, we need lawmakers serious about reigning in the size of government saying, listen, we want to help the states in a fiscalically responsible manner, and if we dull out $60 billion, we have to cut elsewhere. the stimulus projects still getting money, cut those and help the people in new york and new jersey instead. neil: even leaving that issue aside, make better accountability. if we had the inspector general for t.a.r.p. keeping track of how it was supposed to be a bank rescue pile of money that was a

solar projects and what have you, who is keeping track of it? it gets back to the issue, we discussed it before, americans have big hearts, want to help people when they are in trouble, but we adopt want to see money pissed away in the process not getting to the people we reached out there. >> it's deeper than that; right? if money is flying around from the federal government, people assume work's getting done distracting from recovery efforts if you throw money out the door to smithsonian and people claiming they need landscaping wherever. this is an idea we're paying for what we get, and we are not. if we have to help people recovering from disaster, we have to be serious about going it rather than allowing it to be a slush fund which is what is set up to do. neil: up to eight-something billion of this money allocated to -- for future projects to make them more weather resis

tent, hurricane resistant. i don't think so. i don't see that happening. >> absolutely, right. it's what's more weather resistant? it could be solar panels or planting trees. in any way, does it help victims affected whose homes were wiped away trying to deal with the circumstances they find themselves or might be homeless? it doesn't. the idea that the federal government steps in, spreads the magical federal money around to mike it better distracts from efforts and we have to be circumspect about that. neil: we do. timely advice. >> thanks, neil. neil: you know what happened today in connecticut, another massive school shooting in our nation's history. the latest, but a question. how do we protect ourselves and our kids against what's become an all too frequent problem? after this. this family used capital one venture miles

to come home for the holidays. that's double miles you can actually use... sadly, their brother's white christmas just got "blackeout." [ brother ] but it's the family party! really jingles your bells, doesn't it? my gift to you! the capil one venture card! for any flight, any time! that's double miles you can actually use! how illuminating. what's in your wallet? let me guess, am on the naughty list again? ho ho ho!

neil: it was big news when all screens outer floor of the new york stock exchange were on it, not on business channels, they were not on anything else but this. what happened in connecticut today, and what could lead to more than two dozen people, largely kids, getting killed? security expert and former cia covert officer mike baker on how we get through this making ourselves more secure. so little we know, and a lot we're going to find out, but here we go again. what do we do? how do we make these schools safer or can we? >> well, you learn from every tragic, unfortunate incident, and more details will be coming out, obviously, as we go forward and carry out the investigation, and we'll learn about the background and experience and the connections, but, you know, ultimately, the problem is you

can't regulate, legislate, and control your society into a zero risk. we never get to the point where you can stop crazy. you can't do it. you have to find a line that people are willing to live with in terms of the way that we move through society and schools are no deferent, and, now, there are -- better now than even a few years ago at dealing with crisis like this. up fortunately, because we've had them and try to study. neil: not all schools have metal detectors or cameras in every room. should they? what do you do? >> ask yourself the question, how far do i want to go, you know, to have as close to a risk-free life as possible? you know, the problem is what would i like to do? i've got a son who's just started kindergarten, you know, and your heart goes out to the people, can't imagine those feels, but what would i like to

see a police officer from the local area assigned as a beat officer to each school? sure, i'd like to see that. can we pass a rule and find a budget for that? i don't know. i have no idea, but i'm willing to see if you have an armed response in a school, whether it's an elementary school or university, you're improving your chances of reducing the fatalities and the cases if crazy desends on you. are people willing to do that? neil: can you protect yourself from crazy whether it's columbine or virginia tech? crazy marchs through detectors on a rampage. >> right. neil: it begs to issue, and it's not just in america, but we've seen it in high gun-controlled countries, finland and scandinavian countries, they have the same shootings. what is it? is there a collective thing we, as a society do, or what? >> well, i think you're touching on a much bigger issue here, i

think, and that is, you know, why are diseffect the youth, a young man, why are diseffected youth now seemingly, more, you know, psychotic and aggressive and violent, than they used to be? is that the case? if so, you know, what within the society is doing that? why are we creating, you know desensitized individuals who see nothing, or is it just, ou know, crazy's been there, and things like this happen? i don't know. i'm not capable of answering that question that high up. neil: the gun control debate, brought up in these situations, people are going to ask where does it happen and where it happens, particularly in schools, the mall shooting a couple days back, we need armed guards in malls. >> right. neil: do we need armed guards in schools? do we need armed guards in every public center? >> all i know is i feel that in -- if you have the trained responsible personnel equipped to deal with situations like

this on site, you're going to, i believe, this is my opinion, i believe you're going to reduce the potential for mass casualties because you'll have a response available on site. neil: because the presence is known to be there? >> right. again, you're right. usually one of the first thing that happens after a tragedy like this is it revisits the question of gun control, and one part about it i'm a proud gun owner. i think it's an important aspect, and i would challenge anybody who takes away my rights, but there is an issue of, you know, how are they sold and waiting period, and i've wondered about that. i mean, people fight against the idea of a waiting period to buy a weapon. frankly, you know, i run a company, and in part, that does due diligence, background work on people. if you have sufficient time to do due diligence on individuals, you know, you can do a thorough job and uncover issues that might not be uncovered in the short period. i woke up and said i got to get to the store and get another

weapon right away, i need it immediately. put in a decent waiting period in there so you have the chance to do that. don't say you can't buy a weapon. you know, say, you know, you shouldn't have to need that weapon this afternoon, you know, put in a decent petered. maybe that's one thing we can talk about that would, you know, go some ways towards dealing with all the people who cry about gun control after a tragedy like this, but there's the other issue of how far are we willing to go in restricting our, whatever you want to call it, freedom of movement, civil liberties, in order to try to improve our security. schools have done a much better job, crisis management planning than they've done ?t past, but now, as we've seen, it's not enough. neil: it's not enough. the unthinkable occasionally happens. i know a lot of families in connecticut know it. more after this.

[inaudible conversations]

>> did you see a fight? i didn't see a fight, but me hit in the face five times, and then letting him go, he sucker purchled me again. they they they are justifieded because they don't believe you have a right to be there if you don't agree with these people. neil: you know about the fists flying in michigan, union members angry about the state being a right to work state, but now, well, now, they are under attack themselves. scott from americans for prosperity filed a police report, demanding an investigation. greg mcneillly with the michigan freedom funds offering a thousand dollar reward with information leading to the arrest to the folks who turned to violation. greg, any takers yet? >> we've had a few calls, following up, neil, to figure out the authenticity of the information, and we're in the process of collecting affidavits. neil: the goal is what? >> justice.

no excuse about the violence. it's disconcerning saying you took on the unions, what did you expect? we expected civil discourse. there is no -- no tolerance for this violence in the public scare. this harkens back, to the history of organized crime and murder of their opponents, but we should not tolerate this. this delegitimizes their organizations -- arguments and their voice. we're looking for justice. neil: i think it's more the exception than the rule with unions is that unions should be out front condemning this behavior, and it was the fox guy who started it. it got silly. that's what i worry about. it is one thing to sort of ignore a problem, but then not to address the elements within

nor union that make you look bad. what do you think of that? >> no, i agree whole heartedly. what happened tuesday was discussing, and, you know, one of the representatives on the house of the floor actually said there will be blood. that goes from the leadership on the left all the way down to the people that were out there on the capitol grounds. i had members of our organization, 87,000 members in michigan were afraid to come tuesday. i assured them it would be safe because if there's any place we have to be able to a public discourse and exchange of ideas and to feel safe, it's at the state capitol and state capitol grounds, and part of the reason we're calling for full investigation is because these intimidation tactics cannot work. they cannot happen, and the heart of the democracy is to be able to engauge in debate, and that's why we need a full investigation. these people need to be brought to justice, and we needed to know what happened so we can prevent this in the future. neil: the unions know who they are. talk about it, you know, i was

in wisconsin or the recall election of scott walker, and, you know, no one hit me, happy to say, because, boy, that would have been a doozy of a suit, and they called me a chain of words i never seen combined the way they did, or used as many gestures at me as they did. clearly, not a fan of fox, maybe not a fan of me, or thought i was sean hannity, but the fact of the matter, and here's what worries me, greg, is it's accepted behavior. it shouldn't be accepted behavior. >> yeah, absolutely, neil. there's a big problem. the unions shroud themself surround themself in corruption, intimidation, and murder. they have video of marshalls, people in yellow vests there to organize them and be their punt masters. those folks in yellow vests participated in tearing down of the tents with people inside them putting them at public safety risk. this is part of the leadership.

neil: you don't buy the argument that this was an isolated thing, and that some -- no >> and one thing led to another? >> so, neil, this started last thursday at the first protest, and scott was on the capitol steps. our organization to reserve the lawn and tents, and there was people there to voice support for freedom to work. on thursday, scott and his cohorts were surrounded and hassled for three hours, held captive on the steps. i, myselfs thrown into a wall by the thrugs, and we had personal property damage to them. that escalated on their part on tuesday. we gave up the capitol steps. we reserved them, but we couldn't hold them or try to have a flash point with them because we knew what that would cause. we were peaceful in the tents, and scott had people there just being peaceful. there was no provocation here. as he indicated, from the floor

of the michigan house, the michigan democrats owned this because they called for blood, and since the union organized it, i think there's implications here. talking about a culture of organized crime. neil: well, that might be the next step. it's a bit of a leap, but, scott, it's your view right now this has hurt the union movement for awhile? that americans seeing this will look at this and say, well, you want people to have the right to be a part of you. the part of you i see on tv scares me. >> yeah, i think it does hurt the union movement, and that's very unfortunate. you know, my family, allupon members in southeast michigan, and what's unfortunate, once legislation goes into effect, they can still belong to a union, they have the freedom to do that. the unions going down the road hurts themselves and chance to attract members when the members

will have that opportunity to choose whether to be in the union or not. neil: scott, greg, thank you, both. greg, keep us posted if you're getting the reward and get the information needed. as i often say on this, heated debates or otherwise, you can disagree. you don't have to be disagreeable or take it to the next level and punch the other guy out. i mean, we have a democracy, okay? meanwhile, free cell phones for homeless people. it's a government plan with a very, very public bill. >> gave you a phone? >> you sign up, you get a social security, you got no -- [inaudible] ♪

neil: the government's calling,

and it's your money on the line, literally. california paying phone bills for land lines of a lot of low income people. now it's ready to give out cell phones to homeless people and folks already gets welfare and food stamps. california just approving a federal plan that could hook up more than 4 million people. charles payne, not too enthusiastic about this. charles, you and i talked in the break that the logic of this is it leads them to get a job or contact loved ones; right? >> right. that's the supposed rationale. we heard president obama talk about this for some of the justifications of laying down computer lines in rural areas because in a modern society, the only way you get a job these days is to have access to the internet, and, in this case, they are saying, you know, you have a telephone, relatives can call you, but the honest truth of it is, you know, because i don't think it's new, but i believe some form of a computer will be next. that's the string l logic.

listen, it's unfair to the people they can't go online to a job site and post their resumé. of course, every time they post it, they watch a video on youtube a thousand times, and it's misused. hoppestly, it's going to be misused, and the whole thank -- whole thing that bothers me and the booker food stamp this week, and they dry to continuously make poverty more comfortable to the point where people don't get off of it, less effort to get off of it. okay, we'll pay your rent. we'll pay for your food. we'll pay your transportation. we'll give you a cell phone. at what point do i have the need to get off the sofa? neil: the college fund, not a handout, but a hand, and where does the government, then, draw the line, and what should the line be? what should the government be doing? do you ignore or do you do something that helps them?

my view, if you help the economy, you deal a good way towards getting rid of homelessness. >> broad prosperity helping everyone, bottom line. when bill clinton enacted health care reform, people were upset about that, but it added to the level of accountability, and the era economy, they never talk about the fact that he lowers welfare roles and made people go to work at at least have skin in the game or some accountability. you got to add a level of accountability to this. it's not a birthright because i'm born in the country, someone else, because, by the way, the phones, the phone companies pass the cost on to paying customers so the idea is that someone who gets up at five o'clock in the morning, you know, blurry-eyed, tired, goes to work, doesn't make a lot of money, half taxed away, is obligated to pay someone who wakes up any time that day, and, you know, listen, i'm not saying itts a great life

being homeless, but what i'm saying is we make choices in life, and i think they make the choices to fade out of society so much easier when it should be making those choices more difficult. neil: a separate issue, if you have money to burn, and you want to go -- that's your route, giving homeless people cell cell phones have at it. last i checked, california doesn't have the money for it. >> california is america's greece. we continue see them, you know, gone past the proverbial, you know, they have gone over, and it feels weir base there's people re-election -- weird because there's a lot of people who are relatively poor, and if you're rich, you can handle it, but they both are together on the same things, and it's those people in the middle, those 1 million, by the way, who left in the last ten years to go to texas because they are the ones who get crush in all of this, and real opportunities are a loss for everyone, and at some point, you hit a break wall. it's happening around the world right now. neil: how many will actually use

it for the intentions it has? >> from what i read, they admit programs like this around the country have been ripe with all kinds of frauds. i would suspect a vast majority sell it. i can't imagine, you know, a lot of homeless people are drug addicts, you know, we got -- by the way, we got a lot of programs out there. you know, for homeless people, and we got a ton of programs. i know people who have not worked in 30 years. they are alive. they have been through a zillion programs. we are a considerate country. for hose who are truly homeless, they want to be homeless. there's shelters and things like that, but a lot sell it. if they are on drugs, they are going to sell it. you know, they are just not going to have the phones long, the majority of them. neil: 36 states doing this. wow. all right, charles payne, thank you very much. in the meantime, the head of boeing okay with paying more. >> our position is that both

sides give a little to get a lot. that's framing right now is substantial revenue increases. neil: well, i want you to meet the small business guy who has a very big problem with that guy and that kind of talk.

>> if the president's tax increase goes through, there's a million small businesses in america that are going to pay higher taxes. >> falls on the small businesses. >> raising taxes on small business -- >> people who spent a lifetime building a small business -- >> staxes small business' incomes. >> it kills the middle class workers who work for small businesses. neil: we thought it a good time, neighbor by the end of the week, check in with a small business guy. are they right? are taxes to come going to undo them? dover cater ceo, butch, with us,

good to see you. >> good to see you too, neil. neil: politicians arguing on your behalf that taxes go up, even if not directly, indirectly, you pay up. what do you think? >> it's scary. we don't know way to do. it's already a bad economy. now we're hit with the hurricane. neil: the hurricane, notwithstanding that, the economy's improving. you should be liking it. >> yeah, loving it, unbelievable. business is down 30%. neil: is it really? >> it's done, people are not having parties. neil: you're a cater. you don't have the big party; right? >> people are concerned about their homes, south shore of long island, hit hard, thank god we're in business, but we have to be careful. we have to cut back and prepare for the worst, and that's, you know, normally, this time of year, looking to expand the business, but i'm cutting back. neil: with what are you doing now? >> first thing, just protecting

myself, freezing any hiring. i'm not going to expand. cutting back on overtime. looking for any way to just, you know, cut anything that's a luxury. i cut back on the marketing, a few marketing expenses, to be safe, going forward, because after that, what's going to end up with obamacare temperature months after this? neil: you are the top 2%. whaa do you think of that that the president lumps you in with being a fat cat? >> well, it's very sad. it's very, you know, i don't have words for it. it's just, it's like embarrassing. you know? i don't know why he would -- you know -- neil: say, butch, tax rates invariably go up, not as much as the president wants, maybe more than republicans fear. they are going to go up one way or another. i don't know how much. then what? what happens? >> if it goes up -- with the working middle class will have

less disposable income to spend. neil: even the top 2%, the spillover will have an effect? >> top 2% is hit. they spend less as well, and look for every way to save a buck, and that's what i have to do. you know, we worry about discretionary spending, worry about how we're going to make, you know, the profit in our business. we work under small profit mar gyp as it is. everything going up and all the expenses, i don't know how we're going to afford it. neil: butch, what about the idea that smart business guys like you like certainty? if you knew, all right, we expected taxes, and now we know how much. we know what's on the hoer hori. it's not uncertain. isn't there a sense of closure for you and your customers? maybe they know now and can plan accordingly, and a cloud is lifted. it's not that it's a welcomed cloud replaced it, but they know what to expect and move on. live moves on, do their parties, you do well.

>> well, we hope to do well. that's the first thing. neil: right. >> we have to first be careful about everything we do and the price point we serve for the customers. we make it too high just to cover all the expenses, who has a party? be careful with that and have a happy medium. cut any luxury we have, any kind of extra spending, marketing cuts down, and the last thing i want to do is lay anybody off. that's the worst thing to do, and i wouldn't want to do that. i'm going to hone down, put the package to the for my customers so they can afford and keep my staff. i won't be able to grow, and that hurts me. i grew for 25-30 years, and that's what really bothers me. neil: a disconnect between what you say, butch, as a small business guy and the boeing ceo saying i'm okay with a tax hying. there's a balance in the package to it. you say there's a big difference between what a guy like that says and what you're saying? >> yeah. i don't think that could be affected.

it's the people under them who will be affected. people, like me, who are afghanned. the guy who owns a small business or a mom and pop cannedy store will be crushed. people won't have the money to spend, the extra buck, to do these things. it's going to hurt a lot. i hope there's app agreement that's fair enough that we can survive and continue in business. neil: you expect to be hurt, but not too much; right? >> yeah, just be gentle, be gentle. neil: all right, butch, thank you very much. we wish you well. >> thank you. neil: a trooper through all of this. one of the best reads on what's really going on on this small business community because you know what you speak. he's a small business guy. well, you know what he's looking at. what are they really looking at in washington? how close are we to something? rich edson on top of this like nobody else. he's at the capitol, next.

neil: we are nowhere close search could deal than we

were last week at this time. but i guess they could over the phone? >> right. we have got as much done with house speaker out of town than rehab with him in down. he has access to telephones and airports he would be happy to fly back to speed the the president but after the meeting last night, all signs point* to the continued impasse with taxes and spending. neil: we hear that they're getting agitated with each other with the free use in the top. it must get chile? >> you hear of frank

discussion to say it was probably a not the nicest of conversations. also to buy there was there if you read accounts of what happened with the debt ceiling negotiations with the sense of bad blood they say john boehner walked away prematurely and the republicans say the president move the goalposts this is how you begin the president's term but they say don't poison the well come closer to our terms and be nicer and we can meet half way the democrats say we won the election you have to keep on the rates 250 and above. neil: now they say don't